Romans 11:11-36 – Life from the Dead

2014). It deals with one of the great biblical signs of the imminence of the Consummation: the large-scale converision of ethnic Israel in the last of the Last Days. Though other biblical texts touch on this theme (see note 1), Romans 11:11-36 gives us the single most important discussion of this holy mystery. I hope you will enjoy my humble attempt to plumb its amazing depths.

An Exposition of Romans 11:11-36

Though this passage touches only indirectly upon the Consummation, it is of great importance, since here we are supplied with yet another outstanding sign of its imminence: the latter day conversion of ethnic Israel at large, leading swiftly to the Parousia and the Resurrection of the dead. Later, I will touch on some of the practical implications of this unique revelation for Christian life and ministry. First, however, we must examine the text itself, in order to see if this really is the apostle’s message.

Introduction

In Romans 9-11, Paul is addressing the problem of Jewish unbelief. Yes, the primitive Church was comprised almost exclusively of Jews, some of whom were laid into her very foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14). Nevertheless they represented only a small minority of Israel. Moreover, once the Gospel overflowed the borders of Israel, multitudes of Gentiles began to receive Christ while most of the Jews, both inside and outside of Palestine, continued to reject him. So it was in NT times, and so it has been right up to the present day. Always there has been a small remnant of believing Jews, while the large majority of Abraham’s physical seed continues in unbelief. How can such things be? How is it that God’s OT people have largely missed and spurned their own Messiah?

From the length and ardor of his remarks on this troubling providence, it is clear that Paul was quite exercised about it, doubtless in large part because he knew that the opponents of Christianity would point, over and again, to Jewish rejection of the Gospel as a sign of its illegitimacy. Here then we find him seeking to explain large-scale Jewish unbelief, clear himself and all Christians of charges of anti-Semitism, and equip believers of all generations to respond wisely to this apparent obstacle to faith. Continue reading

One Shot, One Book, One God

bible-cloudArticle: Apologetics and the Unity of Scripture by Dean Davis (original source you’d better make it count.

So it was with me one day several years back when my father-in-law and I arose from our chairs in a classroom at the local senior center. During the discussion time in a history lecture I had volunteered a brief comment about the Bible’s amazing historical memory; about how the biblical narratives had actually spawned modern archeology, and how archeology, in turn, had consistently vindicated the biblical narratives. I was grateful for the opportunity to speak up, but thought that nothing further would come of it.

How wrong I was.

Immediately after the lecture ended, an agitated man made his way straight for me. Before we could even exchange pleasantries, his question burst forth. “How can you possibly believe that the Bible is the Word of God?” It was not the first salvo in a tirade. He wanted an answer and, with some difficulty, was waiting for it.

How would you have replied? Seeing that your interrogator is upset, that he will stand for no non-sense, and that you doubtless have but one brief opportunity to deposit in his spirit your best single evidence for the divine inspiration and authority of the Bible, what would you give him?

Without pre-meditation–and I hope by the Spirit of the Lord–I gave him my best shot.

“Sir,” I replied, “there is one piece of evidence above all others that persuades me that the Bible is the Word of God. It’s what we call the unity of Scripture. As you may know, the Bible is actually a collection of books–sixty-six of them–written by over forty authors in the course of some 1600 years. And yet for all this diversity, it really is one book. In all of its pages it tells one story, about one God, who sends one Savior into the world, to the gather together one beloved people for His eternal possession. The more you study the Bible, the more you see this amazing, underlying unity. It is so pervasive, so intricate, and so beautiful that no mere mortal could possibly have produced it. Rather, it simply has to be the product of a single divine Mind, working through many different authors. Above all else, it is this astonishing, supernatural unity that persuades me that the Bible is the Word of God.”

And with that, he turned and walked away.

Orders, Orders Everywhere!

I reflect upon this interesting experience with satisfaction. I believe that by God’s grace I really did get off an excellent shot. My words, if quickened by the Spirit, were well able to give this troubled man a glimpse of one of the great supernatural realities in the world today, what I will here refer to as “the biblical order.” In the paragraphs ahead, I want to examine this order in some depth. My hope is that its intricate, beautiful, and majestic unity will not only strengthen your faith in the Word of God, but give you renewed confidence to share that faith with others.

Let’s begin with a few introductory remarks about the common but mysterious and richly significant phenomenon that we call “order.” Continue reading

Eschatology – The Consummation: A Biblical Scenario

The High King of Heaven: Discovering the Master Keys to the Great End Time Debate by Dean Davis (Redemption Press, 2014).

THE CONSUMMATION: A BIBLICAL SCENARIO

We have come to the end of our journey. Having traversed many a biblical foothill, having scaled many an eschatological mountain, we have reached the summit. Now it is time to take in the view.

From the beginning our goal has been to behold—with clarity and conviction—the Blessed Hope of the Church.

To this end we embarked on our journey by looking closely at the Kingdom of God. First, we discerned its true nature: that it is, in essence, a direct spiritual reign of God, through Christ, by the Spirit; and it is also the realm that that reign creates. Next, we discerned its structure: that the Kingdom enters history in two simple stages: the Kingdom of the Son (already here), followed by the Kingdom of the Father (not yet here), with the two stages being separated by a single Parousia of Christ at the end of the present evil age. To our surprise and joy, we found that this careful NT investigation of the Kingdom actually enabled us to discern the true biblical outline of all Salvation History.

Building upon this, we next went in search of the proper NT principles for interpreting OT Kingdom prophecy (OTKP). This enabled us to discover and articulate what we called The New Covenant Hermeneutic, the NT method for understanding the OT in general, and OTKP in particular. We then applied that hermeneutic with good success to some of the most important and challenging OTKP’s, showing that in the end they all stubbornly resist the premillennial approach, but wonderfully open up and fall into place when viewed beneath the light of the simple, two-staged idea of the Kingdom taught in the Didactic NT.1

Thus encouraged, we ventured into that most “Old Testament” of New Testament books, the Revelation. We began by carefully examining its purpose, structure, and literary genre. This opened us up to the possibility that Revelation 20 might be the last of six “mystical” depictions of the course, character, and consummation of the spiritual reign of the High King Heaven, the exalted Lord Jesus Christ. And when we actually studied Revelation 20, we saw that this interpretation was by far the best.

Drawing near to our goal, we turned once again to the NT, this time to see if its teaching on the Consummation confirmed our suspicions about the true (amillennial) shape of Salvation History. We looked carefully at the Christ-exalting design of the Consummation. We discerned its Christ-centered structure. And we closely examined the top 16 eschatological texts of the DNT. Through all of this, we finally reached our destination. We beheld—with clarity and certainty—the Christ-centered unity of the Consummation. We saw that Christ will indeed come again once at the end of the present evil age, to raise the dead, judge the world in righteousness, destroy the present earth and its works by fire, and create new heavens and the new earth, the eternal home of the redeemed.

In sum, over many highways and byways, over many paths and peaks, we have sought and found the one true Blessed Hope of the Church.

And now, from high atop Mt. Pisgah, let us survey the Promised Land one final time.

A Consummation Structured for Hope

Above all things, God has structured the Consummation with a view to enhancing the glory of his Son (John 5:23). But in so doing, he has also structured it with a view to illuminating, encouraging, motivating, equipping, and empowering the Church Militant. In short, he has designed it so that his pilgrim people may have hope.

On this crucial theme we recall the words of the apostle Paul:

For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works. –Titus 2:11-14

Frankly acknowledging the challenges of Christian discipleship in an age dominated by the powers of evil, the apostle strongly exhorts God’s people to live in a manner worthy of their calling. However, in order to encourage them to rise to those challenges, he also gives them a great hope. Very aptly, he calls it the Blessed Hope. There is just one of them: the glorious appearing of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ. However, there are many reasons why it is blessed. It is blessed because God has made it so simple, so easy to envision, and so easy to proclaim. It is blessed because when the Savior appears, he will do so many wonderful things, things that God has revealed in Scripture so that his saints can “look for” them with eager anticipation. And it is blessed because the contemplation of each of these things is meant to fill them with courage, confidence, and joy as they journey on to the borders of Canaan, where, at long last, they will enter the Promised Land (Acts 3:19, 1 Peter 1:3-9, Rev. 12:13:17).

Therefore, as we bring our own journey to a close, let us take a few moments to remember what we have learned about our Blessed Hope. And as we do, let us consider how God has designed each of its elements to awaken in our hearts a special kind of hope; and how the sum of those hopes makes our one Blessed Hope blessed indeed! Continue reading

Fueling Reformation

sproul_3Article: Fueling Reformation by Dr. R. C. Sproul (original source how can anybody possibly schedule a revival? True revivals are provoked by the sovereign work of God through the stirring of His Holy Spirit in the hearts of people. They happen when the Holy Spirit comes into the valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37) and exerts His power to bring new life, a revivification of the spiritual life of the people of God.

This kind of thing cannot be manipulated by any human program. Historically, no one scheduled the Protestant Reformation. The Welsh revival was not on anyone’s agenda, nor was the American Great Awakening penciled into someone’s date book. These epic events in church history resulted from the sovereign work of God, who brought His power to bear on churches that had become virtually moribund.

But we have to understand the difference between revival and reformation. Revival, as the word suggests, means a renewing of life. When evangelism is a priority in the church, such outreach will often bring about revival. However, these revivals of spiritual life do not always result in reformation. Reformation indicates changing forms of church and society. Revivals grow into reformations when the impact of the gospel begins to change the structures of the culture. Revival can produce a multitude of new Christians, but these new Christians have to grow into maturity before they begin to make a significant impact on the surrounding culture.

Reformation can involve a change for the better. We must not be so naïve as to think that all change is necessarily good. Sometimes when we feel that we are in the doldrums or that progress has been stultified, we cry out for change, forgetting for the moment that change may be regressive rather than progressive. If I drink a vial of poison, it will change me, but not for the better. Nevertheless, change is often good.

In our day, we have seen the rise of what has been called the “New Calvinism,” which tends to focus primarily on the so-called five points of Calvinism. This movement within the church has attracted a great deal of attention, even in the secular media.

Yet it would be wise to not identify Calvinism exhaustively with those five points. Rather, the five points function as a pathway or a bridge to the entire structure of Reformed theology. Charles Spurgeon himself argued that Calvinism is merely a nickname for biblical theology. He and many other titans of the past understood that the essence of Reformed theology cannot be reduced to five particular points that arose centuries ago in Holland in response to controversy with the Arminians, who objected to five specific points of the system of doctrine found in historic Calvinism. For the purposes of this article, it might be helpful to look at both what Reformed theology is and is not.

Reformed theology is not a chaotic set of disconnected ideas. Rather, Reformed theology is systematic. The Bible, being the Word of God, reflects the coherence and unity of the God whose Word it is. To be sure, it would be a distortion to force a foreign system of thought upon Scripture, making Scripture conform to it as if it were some kind of procrustean bed. That is not the goal of sound systematic theology. Rather, true systematic theology seeks to understand the system of theology that is contained within the whole scope of sacred Scripture. It does not impose ideas upon the Bible; it listens to the ideas that are proclaimed by the Bible and understands them in a coherent way.

Reformed theology is not anthropocentric. That is to say, Reformed theology is not centered on human beings. The central focal point of Reformed theology is God, and the doctrine of God permeates the whole of Reformed thought. Thus, Reformed theology, by way of affirmation, can be called theocentric. Indeed, its understanding of the character of God is primary and determinant with respect to its understanding of all other doctrines. That is to say, its understanding of salvation has as its control factor — its heart — a particular understanding of God’s sovereign character.

Reformed theology is not anticatholic. This may seem strange since Reformed theology grew directly out of the Protestant movement against the teaching and activity of Roman Catholicism. But the term catholic refers to catholic Christianity, the essence of which may be found in the ecumenical creeds of the first thousand years of church history, particularly those of the early church councils, such as the Council of Nicea in the fourth century and the Council of Chalcedon in the fifth century. That is to say, those creeds contain common articles of faith shared by all denominations that embrace orthodox Christianity, doctrines such as the Trinity and the atonement of Christ. The doctrines affirmed by all Christians are at the heart and core of Calvinism. Calvinism does not depart on a search for a new theology and reject the common base of theology that the whole church shares.

Reformed theology is not Roman Catholic in its understanding of justification. This is simply to say that Reformed theology is evangelical in the historical sense of the word. In this regard, Reformed theology stands strongly and firmly with Martin Luther and the magisterial Reformers in their articulation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone, as well as the doctrine of sola Scriptura. Neither of these doctrines is explicitly declared in the five points of Calvinism; yet, in a sense, they become part of the foundation for the other characteristics of Reformed theology.

All this is to say that Reformed theology so far transcends the mere five points of Calvinism that it is an entire worldview. It is covenantal. It is sacramental. It is committed to transforming culture. It is subordinate to the operation of God the Holy Spirit, and it has a rich framework for understanding the entirety of the counsel of God revealed in the Bible.

So it should go without saying that the most important development that will bring about reformation is not simply the revival of Calvinism. What has to happen is the renewal of the understanding of the gospel itself. It is when the gospel is clearly proclaimed in all of its fullness that God exercises His redeeming power to bring about renewal in the church and in the world. It is in the gospel and nowhere else that God has given His power unto salvation.

If we want reformation, we have to start with ourselves. We have to start bringing the gospel itself out of darkness, so that the motto of every reformation becomes post tenebras lux — “after darkness, light.” Luther declared that every generation must declare freshly the gospel of the New Testament. He also said that anytime the gospel is clearly and boldly proclaimed, it will bring about conflict, and those of us who are inherently adverse to conflict will find it tempting to submerge the gospel, dilute the gospel, or obscure the gospel in order to avoid conflict. We, of course, are able to add offense to the gospel by our own ill-mannered attempts to proclaim it. But there is no way to remove the offense that is inherent to the gospel message, because it is a stumbling block, a scandal to a fallen world. It will inevitably bring conflict. If we want reformation, we must be prepared to endure such conflict to the glory of God.

Hymn – Not in Me

NOT IN ME
No list of sins I have not done
No list of virtues I pursue
No list of those I am not like
Can earn myself a place with You

O God, be merciful to me–I am a sinner through and through!
My only hope of righteousness is not in me, no fervent prayer
No lifted hands, no tearful song
No recitation of the truth
Can justify a single wrong
My righteousness is Jesus’ life
My debt was paid by Jesus’ death
My weary load was borne by Him And He alone can give me rest

No separation from the world
No work I do, no gift I give
Can cleanse my conscience, cleanse my hands;
I cannot cause my soul to live

But Jesus died and rose again–the power of death is overthrown!
My God is merciful to me
And merciful in Christ alone

My righteousness is Jesus’ life
My debt was paid by Jesus’ death
My weary load was borne by Him And He alone can give me rest
Yes, He alone can give me rest

Seven Things the Reformation Gave Us

I had the privilege of once again hosting Dr. James White’s dividing line program and got to cover some important material today (Thursday). I sought to show how western civilization has been positively impacted by the Protestant Reformation. We owe a great debt of gratitude to the men and women of the Reformation whose sacrifices have been instrumental in giving us many of the civil and religious liberties we presently enjoy.

Martin Luther on Preaching

derek-thomasArticle: Simple and Straightforward: Martin Luther on Preaching

This excerpt is taken from Derek Thomas’ contribution in The Legacy of Luther.

According to Fred Meuser, it would be hard to imagine that Luther’s preaching was dull and devoid of rhetorical passion. It is equally hard to fathom, then, that Luther felt the need to chastise some who did not listen well, saying that some fell asleep and some even snored during the sermon, adding that they sometimes coughed whenever he preached on justification, only to wake up again whenever he told a story. Times do not seem to have changed. All the more reason, then, for the Reformer to keep his sermons relatively simple and straightforward.

Those who have studied Luther’s theological works find themselves in deep waters. Luther’s theology is complex at best. Concepts such as his theology of the cross (theologia crucis), the doctrine of consubstantiation, and the exact distinction between law and gospel (did Luther advance in his understanding of the so-called third use of the law, as some have suggested?) continue to occupy scholars of Luther to this day. Is it surprising, then, that Luther’s preaching was essentially simple and plain? Not really. According to Hughes Oliphant Old, Luther “made no attempt to be a great orator.” Old expands, “[Luther] had none of the rhetorical culture that Basil, Chrysostom, or Augustine had. Luther was a popular preacher with a natural mastery of language. He taught preachers of the Reformation to preach in the language of the people.”

Garry Williams cites a similar statement that Luther makes in his Table Talk:

In the pulpit we are to lay bare the breasts and nourish the people with milk. . . . Complicated thoughts and issues we should discuss in private with the eggheads [Klueglinge]. I don’t think of Dr. Pomeraneus, Jonas, or Philip [Melanchthon] in my sermon. They know more about it than I do. So I don’t preach to them. I just preach to Hansie and Betsy.

Although Luther had been schooled in classical rhetoric as part of the awakening of the Renaissance movement in late-medieval Europe, the Reformer seemed deliberately to avoid its more elaborate affectations, employing in its place a more conversational style. He was, for example, particularly scornful of the use of Hebrew in the pulpit. Though able to converse in both Greek and Hebrew with the best of Renaissance scholarship—scholarship that had triumphed in returning to the sources for meaning (ad fontes)—Luther did not employ Greek and Hebrew terms in his sermons. Williams cites Luther’s acerbic comment about Zwingli: “How I do hate people who lug in so many languages as Zwingli does; he spoke Greek and Hebrew in the pulpit at Marburg.”

Despite these warnings, Luther was firmly committed to the study of the original languages and urged that all preachers have the same passion:

Though the faith and the Gospel may be proclaimed by simple preachers without the languages, such preaching is flat and tame, men grow at last wearied and disgusted and it falls to the ground. But when the preacher is versed in the languages, his discourse has freshness and force, the whole of Scripture is treated, and faith finds itself constantly renewed by a continual variety of words and works.

On another occasion, Luther is even stronger in urging the use of the original languages:

It is a sin and shame not to know our own book or to understand the speech and words of our God; it is a still greater sin and loss that we do not study languages, especially in these days when God is offering and giving us men and books and every facility and inducement to this study, and desires his Bible to be an open book. O how happy the dear fathers would have been if they had our opportunity to study the languages and come thus prepared to the Holy Scriptures! What great toil and effort it cost them to gather up a few crumbs, while we with half the labor—yes, almost without any labor at all—can acquire the whole loaf! O how their effort puts our indolence to shame.

Commenting on these statements of Luther, John Piper makes the following deduction:

Now that is a discouraging overstatement for many pastors who have lost their Greek and Hebrew. What I would say is that knowing the languages can make any devoted preacher a better preacher—more fresh, more faithful, more confident, more penetrating. But it is possible to preach faithfully without them—at least for a season. . . . The test of our faithfulness to the Word, if we cannot read the languages, is this: Do we have a large enough concern for the church of Christ to promote their preservation and widespread teaching and use in the churches? Or do we, out of self-protection, minimize their importance because to do otherwise stings too badly?

Luther’s insistence upon simplicity of language is, in part at least, a byproduct of the free delivery of his sermons; his sermons were extemporaneous rather than read from a manuscript. This fact alone almost guarantees that the language employed is simpler, ensuring that if a complex thought is uttered, sufficient explanation is given to elucidate it, drawn from (among other things) eye contact with one’s listeners that often reveals understanding or perplexity. One puzzled look from a listener, or clear signs that no one is actually listening, will urge simplicity of language—repeating a thought in different language until the point is made clear.

Is the Reformation Over? A Statement of Evangelical Convictions

reformation-200x150The following is a statement released Nov. 1, 2016 by Reformanda Initiative on the state of the Protestant Reformation, which will mark its 500th anniversary next year. Reformanda Initiative is an organization primarily composed of European evangelicals, but not limited to that demographic, which seeks to inform evangelicals of the ongoing nature of the Reformation.

On the eve of the 500th anniversary of the Protestant Reformation, Evangelical Christians around the world have the opportunity to reflect afresh on the legacy of the Reformation, both for the worldwide church of Jesus Christ and for the development of gospel work. After centuries of controversies and strained relationships between Evangelicals and Catholics, the ecumenical friendliness of recent times has created ripe conditions for some leaders in both camps to argue that the Reformation is all but over (that the primary theological disagreements that led to the rupture in Western Christianity in the 16th century have been resolved).

Why Some Argue the Reformation Is Over

Two main reasons are generally cited in support of the claim that the Reformation is over:

1. The challenges for Christians worldwide (e.g., secularism and Islam) are so daunting that Protestants and Catholics can no longer afford to remain divided. A unified witness (with perhaps the Pope as the leading spokesman?) would greatly benefit global Christianity. ?

2. The historical theological divisions (e.g., salvation through faith alone, the ultimate authority of the Bible, the primacy of the bishop of Rome) are considered matters of legitimate difference in emphasis, but not sharp points of division and contrast that prevent unity.

The cumulative force of these arguments has softened the way some Evangelicals understand and evaluate the Roman Catholic Church.

It is also important to note that in the last century, global Evangelicalism has grown at an explosive rate while Roman Catholicism has not. The fact that millions of Catholics have become Evangelicals in recent years has not gone unnoticed by Roman Catholic leaders. They are seeking to respond strategically to this loss of their faithful by adopting traditional Evangelical language (e.g. conversion, gospel, mission, and mercy) and establishing ecumenical dialogues with churches they once condemned. There are now more friendly relationships and dialogue between Catholics and Protestants where once there was persecution and animosity. But the question still remains: have the substantive differences between Catholics and Protestants/ Evangelicals disappeared?

Is the Reformation Over?

In all its varieties and at times conflicting tendencies, the Protestant Reformation was ultimately a call to (1) recover the authority of the Bible over the church and (2) appreciate afresh the fact that salvation comes to us through faith alone.

As was the case five centuries ago, Roman Catholicism is a religious system that is not based on Scripture alone. From the Catholic perspective, the Bible is only one source of authority, but it does not stand alone, nor is it the highest source. According to this view, tradition precedes the Bible, is bigger than the Bible, and is not revealed through Scripture alone but through the ongoing teaching of the Church and its current agenda, whatever that may be. Because Scripture does not have the final say, Catholic doctrine and practice remains open-ended, and therefore confused at its very core.

The Roman Catholic theological method is powerfully illustrated by Rome’s promulgation of three dogmas (i.e., binding beliefs) with no biblical support whatsoever. They are the 1854 dogma of Mary’s immaculate conception, the 1870 dogma of papal infallibility, and the 1950 dogma of Mary’s bodily assumption. These dogmas do not represent biblical teaching, and in fact clearly contradict it. Within the Catholic system, this does not matter because it does not rely on the authority of Scripture alone. It may take two millennia to formulate a new dogma, but because Scripture does not have the final say, the Catholic Church can eventually embrace such novelties.

On the doctrine of salvation, many are under the impression that there is a growing convergence regarding justification by faith and that tensions between Catholics and Evangelicals have eased considerably since the 16th century. At the Council of Trent (1545–1563), the Roman Catholic Church reacted strongly against the Protestant Reformation by declaring “anathema” (cursed) those who upheld justification by faith alone, as well as affirmed the teaching that salvation is a process of cooperating with infused grace rather than an act grounded in grace alone by faith alone.

Some argue that the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification signed by the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran World Federation in 1999 has bridged the divide. While the document is at times friendly towards a more biblical understanding of justification, it explicitly affirms the Council of Trent’s view of justification. All of its condemnations of historic Protestant/Evangelical convictions still stand; they just do not apply to those who affirm the blurred position of the Joint Declaration.

As was the case with Trent, in the Joint Declaration, justification is a process enacted by a sacrament of the Church (baptism); it is not received by faith alone. It is a journey that requires contribution from the faithful and an ongoing participation in the sacramental system. There is no sense of the righteousness of God being imputed by Christ to the believer, and thus there can be no assurance of salvation. Moreover, the Roman Catholic Church’s view is revealed by its continued use of indulgences (the remission of the temporal punishment for sin allotted by the Church on special occasions). It was the theology of indulgences that triggered the Reformation, but this system has been invoked most recently by Pope Francis in the 2015–2016 Year of Mercy. This shows that the Roman Catholic Church’s basic view of salvation, which is dependent on the mediation of the Church, the distribution of grace by means of its sacraments, the intercession of the saints, and purgatory, is still firmly in place, even after the Joint Declaration.

Looking Ahead

What is true of the Roman Catholic Church as a doctrinal and institutional reality is not necessarily true of individual Catholics. God’s grace is at work in men and women who repent and trust in God alone, who respond to God’s gospel by living as Christian disciples who seek to know Christ and make him known.

However, because of its unchecked dogmatic claims and complex political and diplomatic structure, much more care and prudence should be exercised in dealing with the institutional Catholic Church. Current initiatives to renew aspects of Catholic life and worship (e.g., the accessibility of the Bible, liturgical renewal, the growing role of the laity, the charismatic movement) do not indicate, in themselves, that the Roman Catholic Church is committed to substantive reform in accordance with the Word of God.

In our global world, we encourage cooperation between Evangelicals and Catholics in areas of common concern, such as the protection of life and the promotion of religious freedom. This cooperation extends to people of other religious orientations and ideologies as well. Where common values are at stake regarding ethical, social, cultural, and political issues, efforts of collaboration are to be encouraged. However, when it comes to fulfilling the missionary task of proclaiming and living out the gospel of Jesus Christ to the whole world, Evangelicals must be careful to maintain clear gospel standards when forming common platforms and coalitions.

The position we have articulated is a reflection of historic Evangelical convictions with its passion for unity among believers in Jesus Christ according to the truth of the gospel.[1] The issues that gave birth to the Reformation 500 years ago are still very much alive in the 21st century for the whole church. While we welcome all opportunities to clarify them, Evangelicals affirm, with the Reformers, the foundational convictions that our final authority is the Bible and that we are saved through faith alone.

Notes:

[1] These fundamental convictions are expressed in official papers by the two global Evangelical organizations, the World Evangelical Fellowship and the Lausanne Movement. After addressing such topics as Mariology, authority in the church, the papacy and infallibility, justification by faith, sacraments and the Eucharist, and the mission of the church, the World Evangelical Fellowship’s summary comment is, “Cooperation in mission between Evangelicals and Catholics is seriously impeded because of ‘unsurmountable’ obstacles.”

“World Evangelical Fellowship: Evangelical Perspective on Roman Catholicism” (1986) in Paul G. Schrotenboer (ed.), Roman Catholicism: A Contemporary Evangelical Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987, p. 93).
We see this view mirrored in the 1980 “Lausanne Occasional Paper on Christian Witness to Nominal Christians among Roman Catholics” and a comment by the primary author of the Lausanne Covenant, John Stott: “We are ready to co-operate with them (Roman Catholics, Orthodox or liberal Protestants) in good works of Christian compassion and social justice. It is when we are invited to evangelize with them that we find ourselves in a painful dilemma for common witness necessitates common faith, and co-operation in evangelism depends on agreement over the content of the gospel.

Lausanne Committee for World Evangelization, “Lausanne Occasional Paper 10 on Christian Witness to Nominal Christians among Roman Catholics” (Pattaya, Thailand, 1980); John Stott, Make the Truth Known: Maintaining the Evangelical Faith Today (Leicester, UK: UCCF Booklets, 1983, pp. 3–4).